Is the Panny 14-140 worth $150 more than the Oly 14-150?

gary0319 wrote:

All we're saying (my wife and I) is that for our style of shooting, we don't see any difference. Now we don't shoot a lot of detail stuff on a tripod so maybe that's the difference.

How do you shoot yours?

Actually, I own the 45-175 and 12-32, but it should be noted that I bought the 45-175 before the mark II came out. I have tried a friends copy though. If I had it to do today, the 14-140 II would definitely tempt me over the combo. And, actually, between 45mm and 100mm, I believe the 14-140 II outperforms the 45-175.

The thing is, the DxO acutance tests are really one of the important determinants for whether I'll purchase a lens or not, so I'm not suggesting to the OP anything I wouldn't do myself. But, of course, I'd rather have both lenses in my hands to do a comparison.

The issue I have with other peoples' comparisons is that I'm really much more picky about things that others aren't.

I do use my lenses at their max zoom a lot, and I want it to be especially sharp there. The 45-175 is. The 14-140 II is less so, but it is actually about as good as the other 45-150 and 45-X lenses. The Oly 14-150 and the original Panasonic 14-140 aren't.

Here's a DxO comparison:

This is actually not a trivial difference IMO. It's more like a beating, and this is why the 14-140 II is worth the money.

Here are some other threads that might be of interest:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56627476
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54348192

This is largely the way I shoot BTW:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52485185